Noam Chomsky's Theory of Universal Grammar and Development of Language Abilities in Humans - Coursework Example

UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR: MYTH OR REALITY? Abstract Whether language is something individuals acquire from the external cultural environment or develop as a result of their genetic predispositions is one of the most difficult questions in modern linguistics. In this sense, the universal grammar thesis proposed by Noam Chomsky presents one of the most challenging views on the grammatical properties of language, including English. According to Chomsky, the process of language acquisition is genetically programmed and occurs as a consequence of the complex mental processes in the human brain. Simply stated, individuals possess inherent abilities and capacities, needed to understand the principal rules of grammar and apply them to construct meaningful sentences. Ample evidence supports Chomskyan thesis. A profound analysis of language typology by Herman (2009) shows that all languages within and beyond the Austronesian group exhibit the same grammatical characteristics and operate the same list of grammatical conventions. These conventions reflect the ways, in which sentences in different languages are constructed (Kay & Fillmore 1999). Crain (2009) uses disjunctions to show, that children have a grammatical view of language different from that of adults, meaning that they develop their language structures, based on the a priori knowledge of grammatical rules. That the changes in language do not prevent children from acquiring and learning it is one of the principal arguments in favor of the UG thesis. However, not all scholars readily agree to this viewpoint. Language diversity refutes a belief in grammatical universality across languages (Evans & Levinson 2009). The absence of certain grammatical categories in different languages further challenges the UG viewpoint (Evans & Levinson 2009). Ultimately, the UG thesis itself is a result of the lack of observational and analytical skills in professional linguists (Sampson 2005). The current state of literature does not fully support the UG thesis but does not reject it. Objectively, Chomskyan theory exemplifies one of the essential dimensions of scholarly research into English grammar and other languages, and creates a foundation for the future linguistic research. Even if Chomskyan universal grammar theory seems to neglect the differences between languages and the cultural/ social factors affecting language development, it operates strong arguments supporting the generalization and standardization of grammar patterns across languages. Apparently, the future research must concentrate on the investigation of genetic mechanisms and their role in first and second language acquisition by English learners. Universal Grammar: Myth or Reality? Introduction Throughout its history, humans developed language theories, to explain the development and evolution of various language categories. Despite the growing body of scholarly literature about English grammar, many of its aspects remain poorly understood. Many others continue generating active scholarly debates, and the issue of universal grammar is no exception. The universal grammar theory was created by Noam Chomsky and immediately became the object of a profound scholarly analysis. The current state of literature provides a wealth of arguments for and against universal grammatical rules. On the one hand, it seems rather plausible that languages exhibit profound commonalities. On the other hand, universal grammar theories do not account for the cultural and historical factors of language and do not explain, why certain grammatical categories are absent from some languages. Nevertheless, the universal grammar theory represents a new dimension of language analysis and creates a foundation for developing a new vision of the language science. Universal grammar: The basic tenets of theory Whether language acquisition is a genetic process or something determined by rules and environment is difficult to define. Noam Chomsky developed his universal grammar theory, to propose a new idea of language development in humans. As children can’t speak any language at birth but, after a few years, are able to master all language competencies and abilities to the fullest, Chomsky suggested that language acquisition could be genetically programmed (Sampson 2005). Put simply, Chomsky claimed that “the development of language in an individual’s mind is akin to the growth of a bodily organ, rather than being a matter of responding to environmental stimulation” (Sampson 2005, p.27). Chomsky tried to prove that language was nothing but a product of the multiple biological influences, rather than a product of the cultural and social interactions (Sampson 2005). This theory is interesting in the sense that it creates a new picture of language, in which universal grammatical rules and their alignment with the basic mechanisms of human brain functioning turn the process of language acquisition into an indispensable component of biological development in humans. Chomskyan description of universal grammar falls into the two different levels. First, Chomsky describes the general principles of language acquisition, on which he bases his theory (Cook & Newson 2007). These ideas also include a brief reference to the concepts of performance, competence, and the innateness of the human language and originate somewhere in the middle of the 1950s (Cook & Newson 2007). Second, Chomsky proceeds to the description of the complex rules of syntax, which developed during several distinct historical periods (Cook & Newson 2007). According to Chomsky, the rules of syntax and other grammatical categories are not learnt or acquired but, rather, grow in the mind; as a result, the development of grammar is similar to the biological development of the human body, governed by a complex genetic program (Sampson 2005). Chomskyan vision of language does not make clear how humans acquire the language they speak by but shows how they succeed in connecting different language components into one complex system of meanings, which are equally logical and comprehensible. For example, Chomsky compares two different sentences, one from the English language and another of the Japanese origin: the English sentence “the moon shone through the trees” exemplifies a complex grammatical connection between an object called “moon” and other objects/ meanings including “trees” and “shone” (Cook & Newton 2007). The Japanese sentence “ohayoh gozaimasu” represents a complex connection between pronunciation and the stable phrase “good morning” in the Japanese language (Cook & Newton 2007). How individuals develop and learn these connections only biological laws can explain. In Chomsky’s view, the human brain resembles a computational system, which links sounds to meanings (Cook & Newton 2007). These sound-meaning principles apply to all languages and language settings (Cook & Newton 2007). Therefore, “the process of language acquisition is the process of applying these principles to a particular language setting” (Cook & Newton 2007). In this sense, it is interesting to see how the current research supports Chomsky’s view and whether it contributes to understanding of the grammatical conventions in the modern language science. Universal grammar: Defending the view That universal grammar assumptions contribute to a better understanding of the grammatical conventions in various languages cannot be denied. A profound study of different languages and their typology support a belief into the universal rules of grammar and their applicability in different language settings. According to Herman (2009), formal grammar and universal grammar rules represent one of key scientific controversies in language typology; however, it is due to the development of language typologies that universalities in grammar become obvious and clear. A complex analysis of Austronesian and Malayo-Polynesian languages reveals a great number of grammatical commonalities and universals (Herman 2009). For example, languages with the declarative sentences built on the VSO order also begin interrogative phrases with interrogative word questions (Herman 2009). This is particularly characteristic of the Austronesian group of languages, which Herman (2009) analyzed in her research. However, Greenberg universals (or the link between VSO in declarative sentences and the principles of interrogative sentence structure) are not the only proof to the universal grammar theory. It appears that other grammatical structures in languages can be standardized, universalized, and adopted by different language speakers. In this sense, disjunctions are among the most interesting objects of the linguistic analysis. The theory of universal grammar claims that children develop their linguistic skills and grammatical connections on the basis of the a priori knowledge of various linguistic patterns (Crain 2008). Children develop and use their own understanding of grammatical structures, which are different from those by adults (Crain 2008). Take a look at the use of the or-disjunction by children and adults. Children avoid the grammatical connotation of “or”-exclusivity, which is characteristic of adults (Crain 2008). In case of an “A or B” sentence, children inherently imply that the choice between A and B is not exclusive in itself, but leaves sufficient room for including both options in the final solution (Crain 2008). In their turn, adults speaking the same language automatically imply exclusivity of the A-and-B choice (Crain 2008). They avoid using or-disjunctions in situations, when both A and B are equally true (Crain 2008). Universal grammar rules help to explain the differences in the logical meaning of the or-disjunction in children and adults. These universal grammatical conventions govern the process of language acquisition. The fact is in that all children, irrespective of the language they speak, adopt one and the same, “or-inclusive” vision of language, which has nothing to do with the language input they encounter later in life (Crain 2008). These findings position universal grammar rules as “one of the most important factors of language development and acquisition in various cultural settings” (Crain 2008). Recent findings concerning the structure of the human brain and its role in language development in children further reinforce the significance of universal grammar in contemporary grammar. The link between the human brain and language acquisition is too complex to be ignored. “The structure of the human brain is well-suited to make the process of language acquisition smooth and easy” (Christiansen & Chater 2008). On the other hand, the language itself is built on the principles, rules, and standards that are easy to learn by the human brain. Language is so easy to learn by humans, simply because it was well adapted to the needs and features of the human brain. Thus, as long as a human brain possesses standard structural and biological characteristics, so does the language, which individuals get during their development and cognitive evolution. The standardization of natural languages is mostly about the rules of grammar which, according to Chomsky, represents a collective summary of the universal principles and descriptive statements (Cook & Newson 2007). Chomskyan example of a universal grammar rule is very demonstrative: the sentence “Ornette Coleman’s playing was quite sensational” shows that children and adults do not necessarily have to understand who Ornette Coleman is (Cook & Newson 2007). Rather, they can identify an evaluative statement in the past tense, referring to some human subject, presumably of the female sex. Years of the collective evolution between the human brain and language have shown that language acquisition is the process, which gives individuals an ability to understand sentences they have never heard before (Cook & Newton 2007). Surprisingly or not, the changes that occur in the development of any language do not prevent individuals from acquiring and using it. This assumption further supports the significance and relevance of the universal grammar rules. These changes are comprehensible and easy to understand, because they occur within a limited spectrum of the grammatical elements that are encountered across all languages (Geeraerts 2006). These categories usually cover the grammatical concepts of number, singularity and plurality, color, tense, etc. (Geeraerts 2006). Furthermore, these categories never mix: namely, no language treats “blueness” as a grammatical category of number (Geeraerts 2006). These distinctions between different grammatical categories are rooted in the human brain and understood by children, without any further language input. The biological underpinnings of language acquisition are much similar to the genetic ability of the humans to walk (Christiansen & Chater 2008). This is, probably, one of the reasons why universal grammar assumptions and concepts are equally relevant for the first and second language learners. The acquisition of second language is different because: (1) second language learners already speak one language; (2) second language learners usually have their cognitive and language learning abilities matured; (3) language input usually occurs in a way different from the first language input, and may be either written and spoken (Hawkins 2001). Yet, even the differences between can’t reduce the significance of universal grammar: on the contrary, they reinforce the vision of universality across grammatical rules in different languages. In the study by Martohardjono (1993), the native speakers of Chinese, Italian, and Indonesian displayed a remarkable ability to distinguish between absolute ungrammaticality of English sentences and weak violations of the grammatical locality in them. The research participants (among them, foreign language speakers) were able to identify the sentence “Which patient did Max explain?” as having weak ungrammaticality (Martohardjono 1993). Consequentially, the researcher had but to conclude that universal grammar does exist and has a lot to do with human genetics and the structure of the human brain (Martohardjono 1993). Unfortunately, not all scholars in linguistics readily agree with the Universal Grammar thesis. Many of them refute the Universal grammar assumption and emphasize the external origins of language and their significance in the development of different grammatical conventions. Universal grammar: The body of criticism Much of what was written and said about universal grammar assumptions and their inconsistency revolves around the diversity of languages and the absence of the certain grammatical concepts in them. Evans and Levinson (2009) tried to use the diversity of languages argument to prove the irrelevance of Chomskyan theory. The researchers claim that cognitive scientists supporting the universal grammar thesis are unaware of the true diversity of languages in a contemporary world (Evans & Levinson 2009). The argument that particular grammatical categories are absent in different languages sounds even more compelling. For example, some languages do not have fixed-word order (Evans & Levi 2009; Gil 2001). Other languages, like Malay, do not have tense distinctions (Norman 1988). There are languages that lack auxiliaries (Evans & Levi 2009). These arguments refute Chomsky’s belief in the innateness of language. However, they leave sufficient room for the thesis that universal grammar revolves around a limited number of grammatical conventions. Even if some languages lack auxiliaries, as Evans and Levi (2009) write in their article, these languages, nevertheless, operate a definite range of the key grammatical conventions like tense or color. Therefore, a possibility that universal grammar exists, is as relevant as ever. Scholars criticizing the belief in universal grammar sometimes think that the UG thesis itself and the evidence used to support it reflect the lack of observation and analysis in linguistic research. Sampson (2005) mentions Laurie Bauer, a New Zealand linguist, who interpreted the addition of prefixes to verbs in the English language as the sound proof to language innateness and its biological origins. Sampson (2005) exposes and criticizes the fallacies of Bauer’s grammar theory, by saying that an English verb does not only take prefixes but can acquire an object-clause and create a prepositional-phrase complex. The author is confident that all kinds of universal grammar claims result from the failure to observe and analyze available linguistic data, which have a potential to limit the relevance of grammatical generalizations (Sampson 2005). Ultimately, universal grammar seems to ignore a broad list of the cultural and historical factors that affect the development of various language patterns in individuals and societies. Such negligence toward the cultural aspects of language evolution presents a serious challenge to the UG-supporters and seems to give the universal grammar theory in language no chance to win. Does that mean that universal grammar is no longer relevant and does not deserve to be a part of the current system of theory and science? Critical evaluation The current state of primary and secondary evidence does not reject the significance of the universal grammar thesis, nor does it accept it. Rather, contemporary English grammar treats the universal grammar theory by Chomsky as just another dimension of the language science, which deserves to have its place and make its contribution to the development of the human knowledge about language. From the viewpoint of universal grammar, several points seem undeniable: first, the speakers of language have the basic knowledge of words; second, they know the simplest rules of grammar and can combine the words and phrases to form larger grammatical structures; and third, they have the basic knowledge of the principles of semantic interpretation – that is, they apply to grammatical conventions to create meaningful sentences and phrases (Tomasello 2002). Genetic variations in linguistic competence further support a belief in language innateness (Elman 1997). They create a foundation for the future research into genetic aspects of learning grammatical rules (Elman 1997). Simultaneously, the diversity of languages and the absence of certain grammatical categories in them create a complex picture of development and question the relevance of the grammar theory. Apparently, the theory created by Chomsky’s represents the beginning in the development of a new language theory. This theory will help to create a complete picture of language development in humans, and describe a broad range of linguistic, grammatical, genetic, and external factors. There is so much universal grammar can tell the linguists about the hidden meanings of language development in humans. Conclusion Noam Chomsky’s theory of universal grammar presents an interesting view on the grammatical structures across languages. Chomsky defends a view that the process of first language acquisition by humans is inherently genetic and results from the natural human capacity to develop mental connections between grammatical structures and their semantic meaning. Ample evidence supports Chomsky’s belief in universal grammar: the presence of standard grammatical conventions in almost all languages, the structure of the human brain that is well-suited for the acquisition of language and the differences in children and adults’ language categories and constructions suggest that innateness of language is possible and even justified. However, counterarguments to Chomskyan vision of language are equally strong and compelling. In this sense, it is possible to assume that universal grammar is neither irrelevant nor it is a universal explanation to the development of language abilities in humans. Rather, it is just one out of many theoretical dimensions that seek to shed the light on the complexities of the semantic-syntactic connections across a variety of languages. References Christiansen, MH & Chater, N 2008, ‘Language as shaped by the brain’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol.31, pp.489-558. Cook, VJ & Newson, M 2007, Chomsky’s universal grammar: An introduction, Wiley- Blackwell. Crain, S 2008, ‘The interpretation of disjunction in universal grammar’, Language and Speech, vol.51, pp.151-169. Elman, JL 1997, Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development, MIT Press. Evans, N & Levinson, SC 2009, ‘The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol.32, pp.429-492. Geeraerts, D 2006, Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings, Walter de Gruyter. Gil, D 2001, ‘Escaping eurocentrism’, in P Newman & M Ratliff, Linguistic Fieldwork, Cambridge University Press, pp.102-32. Hawkins, R & Chan, YH 1997, ‘The partial availability of universal grammar in second language acquisition: The ‘failed functional features hypothesis’, Second Language Research, vol.13, no.3, pp.187-226. Hawkins, R 2001, ‘The theoretical significance of universal grammar in second language acquisition’, Second Language Research, vol.17, no.4, pp.345-367. Hawkins, R 2004, ‘The contribution of the theory of universal grammar to our understanding of the acquisition of French as a second language’, French Language Studies, vol.14, pp.233-255. Hermon, G 2009, ‘Language typology and universal grammar: A commentary on the paper by Eric Potsdam’, Natural Language Linguistic Theory, vol.27, pp.773-787. Kay, P & Fillmore, CJ 1999, ‘Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction’, Language, vol.75, no.1, pp.1-33. Martohardjono, G 1993, ‘Apparent UG accessibility in second language acquisition: Misapplied principles or principled misapplications?’, in F Eckman, Confluence: Linguistics, L2 acquisition, and speech pathology, John Benjamins. Norman, J 1988, Chinese, Cambridge University Press. Sampson, G 2005, The ‘language instinct’ debate, Continuum International Publishing Group. Tomasello, M 2002, The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Routledge. Read More